Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Who are the thugs?

Two weeks ago when violence broke out at the campus of the Universidad Central de Venezuela the Venezuelan opposition and the international press acted as if the world was coming to the end. Never mind that it later turned out that students opposed to Chavez had initiated much of that violence. Never mind that no one was killed. Despite that supporters of Chavez would portrayed as violent thugs.

Yesterday Venezuela saw who the real thugs were. Anti-Chavez protesters were blocking streets in the central Venezuelan state of Carabobo. Why they felt the need to block streets and attack passersby is beyond me - it seems to me they should express their opinions by voting next Sunday.

Nevertheless, blocking the streets they were. Upon this roadblock came a truck full of workers for the local Petrocasas factories. These were pro-Chavez workers of a Chavez initiated industrial project and they wanted to pass. What exactly happened next is a little confused - some say the truck simply turned around and was leaving others say the passengers got out of the truck and got in an altercation with those manning the barricade.

But one thing is known. The anti-Chavez protesters shot one of the young workers in the back three times killing him instantly. That is right, the supposedly peacefull anti-Chavez protesters, you know the ones the international press tell us go around with their hands peacefully held up in the air, had guns and were willing to use them to shoot people. Here you can see some of the video of the young man's relatives and co-workers discussing this outrageous and murderous event.

So the international press largely ignores it. The opposition controlled press in Venezuela slanders the man saying he was a criminal trying to rob the protesters.

But the bottom line is one more person is dead from political violence in Venezuela. People on both sides of the divide have lost their lives. But unfortunately most people will only ever hear about one set of victims. It seems dark skinned workers from poor backgrounds apparently don't count as much as affluent university students in some peoples minds.

"On November 26, 2007 the Venezuelan government broadcast and circulated a confidential memo from the US embassy to the CIA which is devastatingly revealing of US clandestine operations and which will influence the referendum this Sunday, December 2, 2007.

The memo sent by an embassy official, Michael Middleton Steere, was addressed to the Director of Central Intelligence, Michael Hayden. The memo was entitled 'Advancing to the Last Phase of Operation Pincer' and updates the activity by a CIA unit with the acronym 'HUMINT' (Human Intelligence) which is engaged in clandestine action to destabilize the forth-coming referendum and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the elected Chavez government. The Embassy-CIA's polls concede that 57 per cent of the voters approved of the constitutional amendments proposed by Chavez but also predicted a 60 per cent abstention.......

The outcome of the Referendum of December 2 is a major historical event first and foremost for Venezuela but also for the rest of the Americas. A positive vote (Vota 'Sí') will provide the legal framework for the democratization of the political system, the socialization of strategic economic sectors, empower the poor and provide the basis for a self-managed factory system. A negative vote (or a successful US-backed civil-military uprising) would reverse the most promising living experience of popular self-rule, of advanced social welfare and democratically based socialism. A reversal, especially a military dictated outcome, would lead to a blood bath, such as we have not seen since the days of the Indonesian Generals' Coup of 1966, which killed over a million workers and peasants or the Argentine Coup of 1976 in which over 30,000 Argentines were murdered by the US- backed Generals.

A decisive vote for 'Sí' will not end US military and political destabilization campaigns but it will certainly undermine and demoralize their collaborators. On December 2, 2007 the Venezuelans have a rendezvous with history."

You can’t fight against an Empire. Not right now, when US imperialism is the only master of the world. We Latin-Americans have to accept this harsh reality. It’s impossible to construct (AGAIN) a socialist society in one country, in this case Venezuela. Renegade eye: you are a Jew, aren’t you? So I guess you remember what happened with Israel when Simon bar Kokhba tried to liberate his people from Roman Empire: Israel was wiped off the map. Bar Kokhba was against globalization, and the Emperor had to destroy him.Chávez is also against globalization, against a modern and integrated world. Maybe he is a good guy, but socialism is not the solution.

But unfortunately most people will only ever hear about one set of victims. It seems dark skinned workers from poor backgrounds apparently don't count as much as affluent university students in some peoples minds.

You're repeating a Communist propaganda lie. It was the Soviet bloc, including Cuba, that supported and backed Argentina's military junta, not the United States. United States backed Pinochet's Chile that went to war against Argentina in the late 70's. Later, US again backed Thatcher's England when she went to war with Argentina.

So those 30,000 Argentinians were killed by Castro-backed military junta that United States was trying to overthrow!!!

You're repeating a Communist propaganda lie. It was the Soviet bloc, including Cuba, that supported and backed Argentina's military junta, not the United States Well this part did not even capture my eyes, but tomorrow if i have time I will write a short comment on Argentina and the US tactics.

César xrmr: Thank you for visiting. I will visit one of your blogs in the next few days.

Little Pope: I hope you have a blog sometime. I'm sure it would be compelling.

Chavez is not alone. He has allied with him Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina etc. Washington fears that Venezuela will be a model for others to follow. After the Soviet Union fell, the US believed it was the end of state intervention. The majority of Venezuelans don't want to go back to neoliberalism.

Politiques: I just found out yesterday about the CIA document. No surprises there.

Sonia: I don't know the USSR's relationship to the junta. Tell me your source. Wikipedia says the junta was hostile to USSR.

The US for the most part supported the junta. Reagan had to have his arm twisted by Thatcher, to get his support. Russia and China voted with the UK, in support of the invasion.

Kissinger's OK is what gave the junta its confidence to proceed.

Farmer: The murderer was arrested, and confessed to the killing. He also was unrepentant.

I think you are correct that events in Venezuela will get worse, before they get better.

That article you linked to, has an obviously doctored photo.

Oil Wars point about race, is correct based on the silence of world media.

, I don't know the USSR's relationship to the junta. Tell me your source. Wikipedia says the junta was hostile to USSR.

The US for the most part supported the junta. Reagan had to have his arm twisted by Thatcher, to get his support. Russia and China voted with the UK, in support of the invasion.

Kissinger's OK is what gave the junta its confidence to proceed.

Those are typical leftist obfuscations. "Kissinger's OK", "US for the most part", "Wikipedia says...". It means nothing.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The only 2 (TWO)countries to wage war on the Argentinian junta were Pinochet's Chile and Thatcher's England. Cuba was sending its soldiers to fight in Angola, not Argentina.

It's the same thing with Saddam's Iraq. The left always accusing United States of supporting Saddam in the 1980's, etc. But the BOTTOM LINE is this: in 2003, it was United States that overthrew Saddam's regime WHILE ALL THE LEFTIST AROUND THE WORLD WERE DEMONSTRATING IN SUPPORT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN.

It was the same thing during the Falkland War. Thatcher was such a devil in the leftists's eyes that they were all supporting the Argentinian junta against her.

The Wikipedia is a good source to find out at first sight about countries and their political evolution but it's too general and they often hide historical elements.So here is my little personal contribution for Argentina that you won't find in history books.During the 70s the US had not that much power in countries such as Argentina, Venezuela and Colombia, and there was a need to improve their regional influence so they tried to import the french ideas of the "revolutionary war" in South America and they started first with the country of Argentina. The training of death squads was the 1st attempt to implement this method in Argentina, and they were trained by french military officers for the service of the US in 1976.

During the period of 1976 to 1983, the french were dirty involved with the US in South America, and today there is still a strong denial from the french government about the french connection in Argentina or Chile. Nevertheless we happen to find precious information about their involvement because people do talk but their testimony has always been ignored by the french right media.

Six people were wounded, among them four policemen, when a shooting originated in the Avenue of the Américas de Mérida, where a student manifestation was unfolding. At that time RCTV International correspondent, Elvis Rivas received a blow from agents of Polimérida, while doing his work.

In the moment gunfire erupted were left six people wounded with gunshot wounds, among them four regional police.

Within the group of security forces appeared people identified with 'oficialismo' (officialism, aka- Chavez) who took advantage of the confusion of the moment to attack the journalist Elvis Rivas, of RCTV International, and a photojournalist reporter from the daily 'Change of Century' who were standing with another group of policemen.

How about Maria Felix? de Mille should have offered her more than a walk-on...

This weekend I'll have to watch for minute by minute reports.

Are you kidding? You've a better chance of keeping abreast of events on YouTube. They're pulling the press credentials from CNN International/Globovision to keep them from reporting election results... whoda thunkit. Freedom of the press? What's that? Heil Hugo!

In my book, "Souls in Peril: How Conservatives Desecrate the Holy Scriptures," I note how Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. This was a clear violation of Matthew 7:12 and an example of how conservatives desecrate the Holy Scriptures.

There were no poor people in the land of Oz, because there was no such thing as money, and all property of every sort belonged to the Ruler. Each person was given freely by his neighbors whatever he required for his use, which is as much as anyone may reasonably desire. Every one worked half the time and played half the time, and the people enjoyed the work as much as they did the play, because it is good to be occupied and to have something to do. There were no cruel overseers set to watch them, and no one to rebuke them or to find fault with them. So each one was proud to do all he could for his friends and neighbors, and was glad when they would accept the things he produced.

PAT ROBERTSON: He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if... he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop, but this man is a terrific danger, and the United States—this is in our sphere of influence. We can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine. We have other doctrines that we have announced, and without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out (FJ-there are ways "other" than assassination), and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Jesus kissed both Judas and Dostoyevski's "Grand Inquisitor". After all, the Road to Hell is always paved with "good" intentions.

Mat 7:12 — Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

If I turned evil and were leading millions of my people to their ruin, I would surely hope that somebody stopped me...

Is what Chavez is doing "good" for his people? Is it "just"? Does it make them more free? Does it empower them to make their own choices? Does it give them more chances of sustaining an "appeal" to authority? Or is an autocracy merely the most efficient way of redistributing wealth and labor?

Farmer: I love Pedro Infante movies, except he is not box office in Minneapolis. The festival drew 6 people. I had free tix. The theater where I saw it, is attached to a successful bar/restaraunt. The Parkway Theater in Minneapolis, is the last authentic old time movie house.

I like to see my foreign films at the 'Charles' in Baltimore. There's a Spanish "Tapas" restaurant next door on the right, and a small live-theatre on the left... the "Everyman". My son used to perform in plays there.

btw - If you ever get to Baltimore, you need to take in a play at the recently restored Hippodrome Theatre. You'd swear it was Vaudeville days...

Renegade: I’ll take that as a compliment, though I’m still not an atheist.

Farmer John: Hugo Chavez can be measured by the Golden Rule, just like anyone, but I can’t see how Pat Robertson even began to do that. Robertson would have to prove that Islam and Communism, the redistribution of wealth and labor are so bad that murder would do less harm than good. These questions are so complex that you practically have to have the knowledge of God/Goddess to answer them. Knowledge we sure didn’t have before we went into Iraq. Life is what we value most, and the taking of life is irreversible.

The article below has a link to a summary of the proposed Venezuelan constitutional changes. From what I could tell, it doesn’t look like a march toward fascism, as some fear is happening in the U.S.…

Simply count the victims of communism to date, and you'll discover that the answer is really VERY VERY simple.

100 million dead. Not enemies... CITIZENS since 1917.

What's 1 death compared to 100 million? And this one, unlike that of the Grand Inquisitor, would not be of an "innocent". After all, we've reached the end of innocence, haven't we (and it turned out that Reagan wasn't the monster).

I have said it once, and I will say it again. It is high time Chavez distributed arms to the workers and create worker defense militia to deal with reaction. Chavez must not be an Allende, the boss class, when threatened with the loss of even a few of their privileges throws bourgeois democracy out the window and opts for fascism. The only working class defense is a good offense!

I'll let the debate rage on over whether Chavez has any blood on his hands, what to do about it, how he compares with other leaders, peaceful conflict resolution, etc.

My point for now is that Pat Robertson did not do for Hugo Chavez as he would have Chavez do for him. He would want the benefit of the doubt, he would want everything taken into consideration, he would not want his life taken from him. Robertson desecrated the Holy Scriptures.

Robertson did nothing to desecrate Holy Scriptures... what he desecrated was YOUR interpretation of his remarks AND the scripture, a defect probably induced by your own liberal myopia. Robertson's quote is in the thread above... and the passage you cite. Go back and read it.

Now slowly... explain how what Robertson said violates the scripture you quoted.

Because he is still, today, actively trying to enslave the 4.5 million Venezuelans who voted against "socialism" yesterday, despite being rejected at the polls (last night during his "cadena" he told the opposition to "enjoy their pyrrhic victory"... implying that this "victory" is temporary, and will cost them more than they gained)

Chavez wants to tell free men how they should think and how their lives should be lived... only... that would be an attempt to alienate the unalienable (liberty). Chavez was elected to serve the people, not have the people serve him (or his "goals" no matter how "noble" robbing Peter to pay Paul may sound).

If I were Jesus, I would kiss Chavez, the Grand Inquisitor too. He has the "best of intentions". Unfortunately, "he knows too well what he is doing" and therefore must pay the price for biting the apple.

To accomplish what Chavez wants to accomplish requires the VOLUNTARY consent of 100% of the people. Democracy cannot grant him that consent. For the people have "unalienable" rights.

...and Chavez was elected to guarantee those "dissident" Venezuelans their unalienable rights, not subvert them.

As a military officer I served to guarantee YOUR right as an American to dissent, as well as to preserve my own life and liberty. I would never try and FORCE you to agree with me. I must "convince" you if I want you to do something "different" with your life. However, 4.5 million Venezuelans remain "unconvinced" that "patria, socialismo, o muerte" is the way to go. A "vote" isn't going to change their minds. And so long as their minds remain unalienable, so does the greater part of their property.

And if you repeatedly attempt to steal away the liberty of 4.5 million people...try to assign people their ends (no matter how noble)... serve the poor, etc.,

well, perhaps you no longer deserve any benefit of the doubt... for what doubt there once may have existed, is gone.

Did Jesus "conscript" his apostles? Did Jesus "draft" them or "impress" them into his "Christian army"? Did Jesus ask the Jews of Israel to "vote" on whether or not to support the poor. No. He asked them to follow him... to volunteer of their own "free" will.

Robertson later apologized for calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. At that point he became slightly less conservative and therefore more Christian. For to justify assassination, he would have had to prove a capital murder case, justify the death penalty, rule out mental illness, prove that the replacement leader would result in fewer innocent deaths, justify disparate treatment relative to other world leaders including tyrants, and God/Goddess knows what else. Farmer John, I am not convinced that you have proved a capital murder case. If it were the case of a tyrant with plausible deniability of secret death squads, the tyrant needs to answer to the God/Goddess. The fall guy can be convicted of obstructing justice, and the tyrant can be removed from power, but that’s about as much as we mere mortals can do. When in doubt, isn’t it wisest to live and let live?

As for the political argument, it seems that socialism is much more consistent with the Golden Rule than capitalism. I want as many resources as possible; therefore I want others to have as many resources as possible. If we carry this out to its logical conclusion, it makes sense that we will strive to share work equally, and share resources equally, worldwide. We will keep our population in check so that we can live in comfort, and we will share and share alike. People who promote capitalism promote selfishness, and when they do it in the name of Christianity, they desecrate the Holy Scriptures because they violate Matthew 7:12. They are hogging resources; they are not treating others the way they would like to be treated.

I haven’t been following the specifics of Venezuelan politics, but it sounds like they need to go back to the drawing board on the constitutional changes. Keep the parts that empower the people, but take out the parts that give too much power to the executive. Chavez has five years to groom a successor. He seems to be tremendously popular with the poor. Hopefully he can leave a positive legacy.